Text

theses

In this dissertation, I seek to understand how employees revise their moral beliefs in response to information regarding unethical firm behavior. In my theoretical model, I propose that employees devalue information in the moral domain when it contradicts their current beliefs. I also propose that employees are more likely to use information in their decisions and share information that confirms their beliefs. I also consider the mediating role of information evaluation and moderating role of accountability. In the current management literature, there is no widely accepted strategy to reduce the tendency for employees to disregard conflicting information. I consider different types of accountability and propose that both process accountability and non-financial outcome accountability can promote the acceptance of new information regarding unethical firm behavior and encourage an employee to make decisions based on that information. While previous accountability research has addressed several sources of bias, it has not considered biased information processing based on previously held beliefs, nor how accountability may attenuate the persistence of moral beliefs in the workplace. I test these hypotheses using two study designs (in five experiments) that simulate employee decision-making in corporate social responsibility contexts. In the first three experiments, participants assume the role of a supply chain decision maker who must choose between competing suppliers, one of which engages in human rights violations. In the fourth and fifth experiments, study participants assume the role of a human resources professional and must evaluate fictional research regarding the efficacy of affirmative action hiring policies. I find evidence that evaluation of information quality mediates the relationship between receiving belief-conflicting information and making decisions based on that information, including sharing the information. I also find evidence that accountability moderates that relationship. In all, people rate information as low quality when it conflicts with what they already believe, and as a result, they are less likely to base their decisions on that information or to share this information with others. However, when these same people are held accountable for their decision-making processes and strategies, they are more open to information that conflicts with previous moral beliefs. These findings offer important insights into the mechanisms by which employees disregard information and offer a theoretical foundation for future research on the role of accountability in information processing.

ETD_10270

Ph.D.

Includes bibliographical references

doi:10.7282/t3-qcrf-0c14

ETD doctoral

The author owns the copyright to this work.